Do driving test examiners prefer driving schools?

m33r4

As well as learning in his own car, son took a couple of lessons from a driving school to get tweaked for the test and was considered ready for test. He has daily driving pratice and having been alongside him throughout his learning (I have 32 years driving experience in the UK, Europe, parts of Africa and India), I was confident in his abilities of being a safe and competent driver.

He is accustomed to his car and took it for his test today. Unfortunately he failed at his 1st attempt at the practical driving test. He failed on not looking over his back while reversing in a bay at the test centre even though he made full use of his mirrors and there was nobody else parked in any of the bays, driving at 45mph on the 50mph of the A50 (he said there was traffic so he was keeping a safe distance). He also missed a roundabout exit but was reassured by the examiner it's fine to go to the next roundabout and retake the exit. The examiner didn't ask for an emergency stop, reverse into a side road, 3 point turn or paralell parking.

It felt as though the examiner didn't bother going through a full test and just cut it short. It also seemed like the examiners knew the other driving instructors there on first name terms. Do examiners favour testers who come to test with a driving school, in a school's car? Would it be advisable for him to go for his next test with a school with the instructor sitting in on the test?

Thanks.

InsideInsurance

As far as I was aware the full test had to be given even after an action thats an automatic fail unless the driving is so bad that its too dangerous to continue.

The fact you arent aware that you must be looking backwards and not reliant on just mirrors does suggest that you may not know all the "guidelines" of how they want you to drive to be able to pass. Most driving instructors will say they are teaching you how to pass a test not how to drive.

In theory no there should be no difference who brings someone in, if they were favouring/ disadvantaging people because who their instructor is clearly it could cost them their job. On the flip side they are human and I'd be surprised if there isnt a trend that some instructors routinely put people in too early and others beyond the point they need to be at and so pass marks would reflect this even without corruption.

There could be some bottles of whiskey exchanged but then there's a certain argument that a failure actually is preferable for the instructor as they get to give the person more lessons. More likely is that human fallibility may mean a few instructors pupils get a bit more benefit of the doubt but I doubt its that material.

DarkShatter

They prefer dual controls, put it that way...

Mojisola

m33r4 wrote: »

He is accustomed to his car and took it for his test today. Unfortunately he failed at his 1st attempt at the practical driving test. He failed on not looking over his back while reversing in a bay at the test centre even though he made full use of his mirrors and there was nobody else parked in any of the bays, driving at 45mph on the 50mph of the A50 (he said there was traffic so he was keeping a safe distance). He also missed a roundabout exit but was reassured by the examiner it's fine to go to the next roundabout and retake the exit. The examiner didn't ask for an emergency stop, reverse into a side road, 3 point turn or paralell parking.

It felt as though the examiner didn't bother going through a full test and just cut it short. It also seemed like the examiners knew the other driving instructors there on first name terms. Do examiners favour testers who come to test with a driving school, in a school's car? Would it be advisable for him to go for his next test with a school with the instructor sitting in on the test?

It would be advisable to have a session or two with an instructor on 'how to pass the test' as well as to tweak any driving issues.

I remember my driving instructor saying things like "It's no good that you know you can see behind, you have to move your head so that I can see that you have looked".

My kids' driving instructors also know the routes that the testers use and they had several trips on those, pointing out the things to look out for.

Spicy_McHaggis

DarkShatter wrote: »

They prefer dual controls, put it that way...

Why haven't you started with your usual fairy tail?

lulu_92

Mojisola wrote: »

It would be advisable to have a session or two with an instructor on 'how to pass the test' as well as to tweak any driving issues.

I remember my driving instructor saying things like "It's no good that you know you can see behind, you have to move your head so that I can see that you have looked".

My kids' driving instructors also know the routes that the testers use and they had several trips on those, pointing out the things to look out for.

All of this.

You have to make it so obvious that you've looked so they can be sure. I spent my whole test looking like I was watching a tennis match with my wing mirrors! :rotfl:

He will get there eventually. Just because he didn't pass first time doesn't mean it has anything to do with his learning method. I say have a few more lessons and try to correct the things he failed on, try again and then if he fails again he could go to a school.

My OH failed 5 times. He got there in the end but even 12 years on he blames everyone else for the failed tests.

matttye

Not surprised he failed for the bay parking issue. Not checking your blind spot is dangerous.

matttye

lulu_92 wrote: »

All of this.

You have to make it so obvious that you've looked so they can be sure. I spent my whole test looking like I was watching a tennis match with my wing mirrors! :rotfl:

He will get there eventually. Just because he didn't pass first time doesn't mean it has anything to do with his learning method. I say have a few more lessons and try to correct the things he failed on, try again and then if he fails again he could go to a school.

My OH failed 5 times. He got there in the end but even 12 years on he blames everyone else for the failed tests.

Same, my driving instructor said that you must move your whole head to check mirrors during test otherwise examiner can't see you using them!

I passed first time with three minors after making a mistake that would've been a fail on the way there. :rotfl:

DaveF327

Allow me to set the record straight.

Examiners are not only impartial, they are total strangers to you and your son. That means they couldn't possibly have anything to hold against you. There is no motivation for issuing a fail "for the sake of it" as they have absolutely nothing to gain for doing so.

If you were not present during the test to witness what really happened, you are relying on the recall of events from the candidate. The same candidate whose judgement wasn't quite good enough to pass the test will only give you his version of events as perceived through his somewhat clouded judgement. Quite often, they will never admit to the gravity of their mistakes. I once overheard a candidate telling his instructor after a test that he "failed for touching the kerb". What he didn't tell his instructor was that he actually mounted it and reversed over the footpath by several feet with both nearside wheels.

Let's look at some of the points you raised:

m33r4 wrote: »

He failed on not looking over his back while reversing in a bay at the test centre even though he made full use of his mirrors and there was nobody else parked in any of the bays,

Look at the 2nd page of your son's test report (DL25D) under item 5: "You must take good effective all round observation throughout the manoeuvre". Looking in a mirror isn't enough. Pedestrians can cross behind your car from any direction. Looking in one mirror means they will only notice a potential hazard after it has passed by. Have you ever had to take evasive action (on foot or in a car) to avoid the elderly lady reversing out of a bay in a supermarket, oblivious to your approaching presence from the side? Chances are she was looking in her mirror the whole time too, but only seeing the restricted angle of view that the mirror shows.

It doesn't matter that there were no cars around to hit; the point is that he didn't look to see if any cars were there, nor did he consider the risk from pedestrians and changing surroundings - such as other cars entering the car park.

driving at 45mph on the 50mph of the A50 (he said there was traffic so he was keeping a safe distance).

Again, this is pretty much subjective, but assuming the traffic in front was driving at 50, the conditions were safe enough to drive at 50 and the distance between vehicles is already safe, then one should be driving at 50. 45 is too slow, especially if the gap in front is ever widening and following traffic is becoming frustrated. It won't be long before traffic starts to overtake and fill the gap in front that the driver had left. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual speed fluctuated between 35 and 45, but the candidate only tells one half of the tale.

I've seen examples of test candidates driving too slowly for the conditions, trying to please the examiner, but in reality causing a nuisance to traffic by leaving way too big a safety distance and not keeping up with the traffic flow.

He also missed a roundabout exit but was reassured by the examiner it's fine to go to the next roundabout and retake the exit.

You don't specify if this is an actual reason for failure or simply an incidental event on the test, but if this was assessed as a serious fault, the test report should specify what area his driving fell short of the required standard. There could have been a problem with his signal, his position or his response to road markings. While missing an exit alone isn't something one could fail a test for, test candidates in reality tend to commit some other risky fault while missing the exit. Examples include:

• giving a left indicator to leave the roundabout, then missing the exit, causing a joining car to brake sharply as a result of his mis-information.
• occupying a left turn only lane to make an intended turn, then not making that turn, driving contrary to that road marking.

The examiner didn't ask for an emergency stop, reverse into a side road, 3 point turn or paralell parking.

Emergency stops are now only carried out on one in three tests. That has been the case since 1999. Only one reversing manoeuvre of the four is now required (it used to be two prior to 2010). You said he performed the reverse bay park in the car park, which he failed on, so the other three manoeuvres are not required.

It felt as though the examiner didn't bother going through a full test and just cut it short.

Did you time the test between wheels rolling at the start and engine stopping at the end? If the test lasted over 30 minutes, then the legal requirement has been met. As long as the examiner completed the legal requirements - which all examiners go to great pains to do - such as asking vehicle safety questions, a couple of stops and starts on route, 30 minutes of time, one manoeuvre, then the test is legally watertight and no appeal will succeed.

It also seemed like the examiners knew the other driving instructors there on first name terms.

Many driving instructors are there each and every week, sometimes several times a week, so examiners will get to know most of them during the course of their work.

Do examiners favour testers who come to test with a driving school, in a school's car?

No. In fact, candidates turning up for test in a private car generally tend to be of a higher quality than those presented for test by many instructors. Those who have access to a family car will have had many more hours behind the wheel than somebody who can only afford a one hour lesson a week with an instructor.

Would it be advisable for him to go for his next test with a school with the instructor sitting in on the test?

It won't make the slightest bit of difference to the result. If he drives unduly below the speed limit in his instructors car, reverses using only the mirrors and causes confusion at roundabouts, he could still fail again. Analyse and correct the faults, bring his driving up the standard required (this will take some brutal honesty!) and a pass will be within his grasp whatever he drives on the day.

Don't settle for second best, the examiner certainly won't.

cajef

I would second the excellent post by DaveF327 and would just like to add that I have sat in on driving tests where candidates have failed and I have been aware that they are going to fail by mistakes I have seen them make during the test and have rarely ever been able to question an examiners decision, on analysis after a test the pupil often cannot see where or what they have done wrong until it is explained to them in detail.

Consequently pupils that fail a test with just the examiner in the car are not capable of a proper analysis of what they have done and sometimes think they have had an unfair or biased examiner, whereas if they had driven to the required standard they would have passed.

Mojisola

m33r4 wrote: »

(I have 32 years driving experience in the UK, Europe, parts of Africa and India), I was confident in his abilities of being a safe and competent driver.

One thing we did before taking our young learners out for driving practice was to have an assessment session with an instructor so that he could point out where our driving varied from the test standard.

If you think your son's driving is better than it actually is, perhaps you're not aware of any bad habits you've acquired over the years.